860 N.W.2d 466
N.D.2015Background
- Barnes pleaded guilty to driving under the influence as a class A misdemeanor in December 2013; prior convictions were introduced by Barnes to establish two DUI priors.
- A May 2012 DUI judgment and a March 2013 municipal DUI judgment were referenced; May 2012 judgment did not indicate counsel or waiver, while March 2013 judgment did.
- Barnes objected that the May 2012 judgment could not be used as a sentencing enhancement without a valid counsel waiver.
- The district court held that the March 2013 waiver cured the defect in the May 2012 judgment, allowing use of prior DUIs for sentencing enhancements.
- Barnes was sentenced under § 39-08-01; the district court judgment shows a $2,000 fine and a one-year jail term with 120 days in jail served, stayed pending appeal.
- Barnes appealed arguing the uncounseled prior plea could not be used to enhance his sentence, and that his plea was unconditional and counseled, not conditional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether uncounseled prior DUI pleas can be used to enhance sentence | Barnes contends uncounseled prior pleas cannot support enhancements. | Barnes argues the prior uncounseled plea cannot be used unless properly waived or counseled. | Not preserved; pleading was counseled and unconditional. |
| Whether Barnes reserved appellate review under Rule 11(a)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P. | Barnes intended an appeal as a point of law for sentencing. | Court and counsel treated issue as law for sentencing, not reserved appeal. | Issue was not properly reserved under Rule 11(a)(2). |
| Whether a counseled, unconditional guilty plea forecloses review of prior uncounseled plea issues | Uncounseled prior plea issues should be reviewable for sentencing enhancements. | Counseled, unconditional plea includes the elements and basis for the offense; cannot collaterally challenge prior uncounseled pleas. | Barnes cannot challenge the uncounseled prior plea; plea admits elements and fixes basis. |
| Whether the court could resentence for a second/offense under § 39-08-01 given a counseled, unconditional plea | Enhancement findings should be scrutinized if based on uncounseled prior offenses. | Plea provides the factual basis; cannot resentence without withdrawing the plea. | Resentence based on prior offenses not permissible without withdrawal; not at issue due to preservation. |
| Whether the judgment and plea complied with Rule 11 procedural requirements | Rule 11 requirements may not have been substantially met due to lack of writing for conditional plea. | The plea was not conditional; substantially complied with Rule 11; not a conditional plea case. | Rule 11 substantial compliance; no conditional plea; issue not preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Trevino, 2011 ND 232 (2011) (plea validity and voluntariness framework)
- State v. Clark, 2010 ND 106 (2010) (plea validity standards)
- State v. Blurton, 2009 ND 144 (2009) (Rule 11 waiver and conditional plea requirements)
- State v. Slapnicka, 376 N.W.2d 33 (N.D. 1985) (voluntary guilty plea waives certain pre-plea challenges)
- Murphy, 2014 ND 202 (2014) (substantial compliance with Rule 11; nonjurisdictional errors)
- State v. Tutt, 2007 ND 77 (2007) (prior conviction for sentence enhancement not element of offense)
- City of Fargo v. Cossette, 512 N.W.2d 459 (N.D. 1994) (prior convictions used for enhancements)
- Mack v. United States, 853 F.2d 585 (8th Cir. 1988) (plea admits elements and waives challenges absent jurisdiction issues)
- United States v. VandeBrake, 679 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2012) (unconditional plea review limits under Rule 11)